Background
In 1999, Sahr Bockai paid for an Anacostia property where he planned to operate a pharmacy, but directed that the deed name his sister, Janet Ahmadu, as sole owner. Ahmadu gave Bockai power of attorney concerning the property. For nearly two decades, he managed and improved it, paid its expenses, operated the pharmacy, rented part of the building, and reported its rental income.
After Bockai developed Alzheimer’s disease and his children became his guardians, they sued Ahmadu on his behalf to quiet title. Following a bench trial, the Superior Court held that Bockai had acquired legal and equitable title through adverse possession, rejected Ahmadu’s assertion that the property had been a gift, and awarded Bockai attorney’s fees and costs without explanation.
The Court’s Holding
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the evidence could not support adverse possession as a matter of law. Ahmadu held legal title and had authorized Bockai through an unrevoked power of attorney to manage the property. His owner-like conduct therefore was permissive, not hostile, absent actual notice or sufficiently manifest conduct disavowing Ahmadu’s title. No such evidence existed for the required 15-year period.
The court left undisturbed the factual finding that Bockai did not intend the purchase as a gift to Ahmadu, but held that the trial court’s gift analysis was internally inconsistent because Bockai never held legal title that he could give away. That finding might instead bear on equitable theories such as unjust enrichment, a resulting trust, or a constructive trust. The court vacated the ownership judgment and the trial court’s rejection of unjust enrichment, permitting those equitable issues to be reconsidered on remand.
The court also vacated the attorney’s-fee and costs award because the trial court supplied no reason for it, making meaningful appellate review impossible. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Possession and management authorized by a titleholder’s power of attorney are permissive and do not become adverse without a clear disavowal of the titleholder’s ownership.
- Paying expenses, improving property, collecting rent, and otherwise acting like an owner do not alone establish hostility when those acts are authorized.
- A court generally must explain an award of attorney’s fees and costs sufficiently to permit appellate review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the demanding clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for adverse possession, particularly when an occupant originally entered or exercised control with the record owner’s permission. Longstanding, exclusive management is not enough unless the claimant clearly repudiates the owner’s title for the statutory period.
The ruling does not finally resolve ownership. On remand, the trial court may consider whether Bockai’s payments and lack of donative intent support equitable relief, including unjust enrichment or a constructive or resulting trust.